Abstract
Spirituality and its relationship to leadership and organizational behavior has been of increasing interest to researchers, but inadequate scales have limited rigorous quantitative studies. Spirituality is complex and involves experiential, emotional, and transformative dimensions that create dynamic cycles of expectancy, behavior, and attitudes that evolve, rendering many existing spiritual practice behavioral measures inadequate. An instrument developed to capture the broader concept of spiritual engagement, the Spiritual Engagement Instrument (SpEI), is presented. Through an overview of SpEI development, and demonstration of SpEI research, a primer to advance spirituality-based organization and leadership research is offered. If spiritual engagement is a transformative cycle, understanding and measuring the phenomena in context will better inform leadership and organization development policy. Toward a theoretical and practical understanding, this chapter guides the researcher in exploring the potential of spirituality in organizations.
TopBackground
Researchers have been increasingly interested in understanding the higher order needs of individuals and how related motivators may influence organizations and their leaders. Reflecting a growing awareness of intrinsic drives, attention has turned to the less materialistic motivations (Crossman, 2010), leadership spirituality dimensions (Conger, 1994; Fry, 2003; Posner, 2009; Reave, 2005) and spiritual wholeness and workplace meaning within the framework of positive psychology (Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Karakas, 2010).
Scholars are increasingly aware that effective leadership is “grounded in the spiritual dimension of the individual leader” (Strack & Fottler, 2002, p. 4) which allows leaders to develop humility, wisdom, a moral compass, servanthood, self-awareness, and the relational transparency to advance their leadership effectiveness (McNeal, 2000). Considering that leadership is a projection of the leader’s identity, Ashmos and Duchon (2000) suggested that spirituality provides an inner nourishment that clarifies identity, and Hoppe (2005) connected that developing inner self with the spiritual connectedness necessary for true authenticity. In addition, the resulting integration of core beliefs from deepening spirituality helps the leader align espoused theory with behaviors connecting heart and mind to deliver effective, authentic leadership (Fry, 2003).
Key Terms in this Chapter
Validity: In research validity refers to how well the construct of interest is in fact measured by the method used. That is, does the study measure what it is intended to capture.
Spiritual Engagement: The transformational cycle of expectations (faith), attitudes, behaviors, and deeper spirituality that is theorized to elevate spiritual identity and empower leaders to practice positive leadership more consistently.
Social Desirability Response Bias: A bias in social science surveys that results as respondents answer in ways viewed as socially favorable.
Discriminant Validity: Like convergent validity, an element of construct validity. Discriminant validity refers to whether theoretically dissimilar constructs are in fact statistically different. That is, can the related constructs be shown to ‘diverge’?
Spiritual Disciplines or Exercises: Spiritual practices such as prayer, reading scripture, or worship that are intended to develop the inner being, the spiritual identity.
Differences Testing: Class of analysis using statistical tools that assess whether there are statistically significant differences between two or more groups of data. Different tests such as ANOVA, t-tests, or MANOVA are used depending on the nature of the data and groups.
Authentic Leadership: A contemporary normative leadership theory that is considered by some researchers to be at the root of normative leadership and reflects principles such as self-awareness, consistency in word and action, fairness, and ethical practices. Like most leadership theories, precise constructs vary among researchers.
Convergent Validity: An element of construct validity that refers to whether theoretically similar constructs are in fact statistically related. That is, do the related constructs ‘converge’?